Lists Home |
Date Index |
7/15/2002 1:00:58 PM, "W. E. Perry" <email@example.com> wrote:
> I have, however, reluctantly concluded that
>the desire for documents to express authorial intent or preference is simply
>too strong and too widely held to be overcome even by repeated demonstration
>of the superior usefulness of a simpler, loosely-coupled architecture.
Do you think this is generally true, or only in some/many specific domains?
I'd be the first to agree that the author's intent in an aircraft maintenance
manual should be respected, nay ENFORCED, by everything from the software
to the court system! Bring on the True Schemas, the strong typing, whatever
it takes!!! I don't want creative mechanics experimenting with whether one
part really is substituteable for another part on any plane that I'm on :~)
Other documents such as a purchase order or invoice are
more of a suggestion -- "I think I would like to buy this product, but only
under the following terms" or "We think you agreed to purchase this service,
if you pay the invoice, then that closes the deal."
But other documents -- weblog entries, knowledge management system entries, bits of
boilerplate come to mind -- are explicitly meant to be used in the widest possible
way and should enable re-use in a loosely coupled environment.
So, I think I'm with Joe: Documents shouldn't specify how they are to be used, they
should be embedded in a process that specifies how specific documents are to be
used. Even the aircraft maintenance manual should be driven by a process that
specifies when bits of text are to be validated against what rules; an individual
document may be re-used, the schemas evolved, etc.